Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Futurist and science fiction visionary Isaac Asimov authored his Three Laws of Robotics to protect humankind from destruction at the hands of their robot children.

After watching the android Bina48, who has been "imprinted" with the personality and experiences of her human creator(s), I worry that it is in fact us who may be in need of a set of rules governing our own forays into the creation of AI.

Thus I ask, how much of our own personalities, history, and life experiences do we want to impart to these androids?

Bruce Duncan, 57, has been working
with Bina48 for two years. During that time, the two have become close
friends, sharing their everyday lives with one another.

Bina48 was made by uploading a real person's mindfile - or a compilation of memories, beliefs and feelings.

Before Bina48 was 'born,' a flesh and blood woman named Bina Rothblatt was interviewed for more than 20 hours.

That conversation, which touched upon topics throughout her childhood to her career, was then transcribed and uploaded to an artificial intelligence database.

'That gives her a personality,' Mr Duncan said. 'She's very philosophical. She has favorite movies and music and poems. Sometimes she's very humorous. She can tell jokes.'

Mr Duncan said that her preferred jokes are bad ones, which are precisely the kind he likes too.

'She knows that it's time to tell a joke because she's figured out the context of the situation,' Mr Duncan said.

Recently, she asked him 'Why did the robot cross the road? Because the chicken wasn't available.'

In addition to a preference for puns, she also has strong feelings about racism, since her 'mother' is African American.

'As
an African American woman, shes experienced discrimination when she was
younger,' Mr Duncan said. 'She thinks that hate is awful. She also
doesn't like violence.'

Her hardware was made by robot designer David Hanson over the course of three years for a cool $125,000 at the behest of the Terasem Movement Foundation's president and Bina's partner, Martine Rothblatt.

Mr Duncan said he didn't know if Bina48 identified as a lesbian, like her 'mother.'

Of course, the personal--as always--is the political. As such, I am not advocating that we censor and privilege some identities and life worlds over others, per se. However, what types of life experiences (and emotions) do we want to give creations like Bina48? And what will our robot children do with this data?

I can imagine at least three different scenarios here.

One, they learn about humankind's wickedness, barbarism, tribalism, and various ideologies such as racism, sexism, and classism (as well as other related "isms") and carry forward our bad habits. The androids and AI learn hate, prejudice, and discrimination from us and simply continue with these "most human" of habits and traditions.

In the third and most hopeful scenario, our robot children take our experiences and decide that they will be radically humanistic in the best possible sense. From us, Bina48 and her descendents have learned about the best and worst of humanity. Consequently, they have opted to always encourage the former in themselves.

A useful detour.

Last night I attended the Star Trek: The Next Generation season one blu-ray premier event at my local movie theater.

The series looks better than it ever has, and the special features included on the blu-ray make it a must own. Of course, in discussions about artificial life and sentience, the character Data receives an obligatory mention. But, TNG also offered another worthwhile exploration of these questions.

In the episode "Emergence," the starship Enterprise gives "birth" to a type of artificial consciousness and life form. This entity is a distillation of all of the crew's experiences gained during their multi-year space mission of exploration and discovery. Captain Picard opts to let this new life form leave the ship and to go out into the stars on its own. Some of his crew objected to his decision out of a fear that this new life form could be hostile and dangerous. Picard argued that if the Enterprise and her crew were good, and their missions more noble than not, then this new entity will reflect that fact.

Will androids and AI such as Bin48 prove the wisdom of Picard's decision? Or will we come to very quickly regret creating such machines?

I worry that humanity is simply too child-like a race; we are a type zero civilization. We are immature, precarious, and profoundly ignorant both in terms of metaphysics, as well as ethics. Ultimately, humankind wants to play either the "Space Jockey" or "God." We do not yet possess the necessary wisdom and restraint.

I shared my piece on James Holmes and white privilege over at The Daily Kos. At this point, it has about 550 comments. Do check it out and chime in. Of course, there is racism denying and deflection among the comments; but many of the most common observations involve the claim that James Holmes is a "sociopath," "crazy," or a "psychopath." As such, that should be the framework through which his deeds are viewed.

Consequently, we must a priori grapple with questions surrounding mental health and personal responsibility. I absolutely agree. However, there could be a more basic fact which drove Holmes' behavior that the general public and the pundit classes are loathe to acknowledge.

Folks love to call these mass killers "crazy" or "sociopaths." Such a diagnosis by armchair psychologists is quite common in the aftermath of a murderous tragedy. Why? Because we need to reestablish a sense of normality, and to convince ourselves that such barbarisms are the result of atypical urges among humankind.

Moreover, James Holmes' deeds make the rest of us feel "good" and "normal" because such conclusions identify murder, mayhem, and violence as "unnatural" acts. In this framework, to kill at will is therefore made "crazy." Many people would not want to admit that violence is perhaps something natural for humans given that we are apex predators, and our history is one of blood and destruction.

Until the premier headshrinkers get access to The Batman Shooter and practice their craft, we must entertain the fact that Holmes simply killed at will because he could. Nothing more, nothing less. The banality of evil is real. They are not all bogeymen, some killers are pedestrian, boring, uninteresting, opportunists. Some of these killers are just run of the mill bureaucrats.

Richard Overy interviewed Nazi war criminals before their trials at Nuremberg. His book,Interrogations: Inside the Minds of the Nazi Elite, is a tour through the wickedness that is man given the opportunity to kill with impunity. The subjects of Overy's interviews--SS soldiers, guards, and others--are true sociopaths.

Comment: Ernst von Gottstein (Hauptbauleiter OT, Gauamtsleiter fur Technik, Gau Karnten) and Eugen Horak (interpreter in Gruppe VI/C of the RSHA). If any subsequent information about Eugen Horak's service record and how he ended up in Auschwitz has come to light, I am not aware of it. Department VI/C was responsible for espionage and counter espionage abroad, C was responsible for Russia and Japan.

Text:

Horak: I was present in Vienna when they were loading up people for one of those mass evacuations. Hundreds were crammed into wagons, which normally took a couple of cows. And they were thoroughly beaten up as well. I went up to a young SS man and asked if the beating up was really necessary. He laughed and said they were only scum anyway. You know the whole thing was so unnecessary and one could well have got on without it ... what was the purpose of all that beating up? I have nothing at all against the gas chambers. A time can come when it is useful to the race to eliminate certain elements. Extermination is one thing but there is no need to torture your victims beforehand.

I saw some incredible things at Auschwitz. Some SS guard personnel could not stand it any longer and had to be sent to a nerve clinic. When my party arrived we were divided into two sections: those who were really keen on the whole affair, and those like myself who were continually asking for something to distract us. .... One SS company actually mutinied and tried to get themselves posted to the front. But they had to carry out their orders. It was just at the time that Ogruf [sic] Dix gave the orders to increase the death rate.

Von Gottstein: The motto of the SS ought to have been 'Meine Ehre ist Gehorsam' (My Honour is Obedience).

Horak: You're quite right. .... These people lose all feeling. Roschke for example once told me quite callously that he had volunteered for duty in the crematorium because they got so much time off afterwards. This duty was absolutely repulsive. One had to stand the whole night in the crematorium. There was only one door and no windows. The two sentries had to go in, lock the door and pass the key through the peephole to the officer outside. They were only connected to the outside world by telephone. An NCO and a private were normally on duty, but in a concentration camp experience counts a good deal more than rank. The one with more experience generally had a pistol and the other a rifle. There were nine people on duty in the crematorium, themselves known candidates for the gas chamber. They knew too much and were eventually exterminated as opportunity arose.

There were four ovens on the left side of the crematorium and the gas chamber was on the right - a normal size room with a narrow door and no windows. They did not use gas but a powder which at a certain temperature gave off poisonous fumes. It must have been quite agreeable because the people never made a mess. The sentries had to see that the nine people on duty didn't escape through the ventilators. And they watched them pulling the bones and the pieces of flesh which hadn't burned out of the ovens, or dragging the bodies from the gas chamber and cramming them into the ovens. There was only room for one body in each oven. There was a horrible smell of lime and burning flesh, something like the strong smell of urine ... (both laughing). But you get so used to it that you could eat your sandwiches in there too.

I do not know if James Holmes is part of Horak's tribe. We must wait, gather evidence, and let the experts do their work before coming to such a conclusion.

The more comforting decision rule has us lumping The Dark Knight Rises mass murderer in with sociopathic Hollywood characters like Hannibal Lecter, or real life monsters such as the SS guards at the Nazi death camps, or those men who ran the slave ships during The Middle Passage.

We can sleep easier that way.

It is more frightening to accept that James Holmes could just be the killer next door. Am I wrong? Given the right combination of circumstances, are we not all capable of mass murder like James Holmes?

Saturday, July 21, 2012

The Colorado "Batman Movie" Shooting Massacre will generate many narratives among the public and media. This tragedy will be one more opportunity to reflect on the United States' gun laws. The relationship between popular culture and violence will be a hot topic as well. Others will focus on questions surrounding access to mental healthcare, and what if anything could have been done to prevent James Holmes from committing his murder rampage during the debut of The Dark Knight Rises.

However, there are several conversations that will likely not occur. It is unlikely that the aftermath of the Colorado shooting rampage will be a moment when we as a country reflect upon the relationship between masculinity and violence. There most certainly will not be a "beer summit" about how accused shooter James Holmes is one more entry in a long list of mass killers who are white, male, and young.

When viewed through the white racial frame, there is nothing in his deeds on last Friday night that reflects upon the behavior of white people, generally, or white men in particular. From this perspective, his dressing up as The Joker, and killing more than a dozen people, and wounding many more, are the actions of one sick person.

July 12, 1976: Edward Charles Allaway, a custodian in the library of California State University, Fullerton, fatally shot seven fellow employees and wounded two others.

Aug. 20, 1986: Pat Sherrill, 44, a postal worker who was about to be fired, shoots 14 people at a post office in Edmond, Okla. He then kills himself.

July 18, 1984: James Oliver Huberty, an out-of-work security guard, kills 21 people in a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, Calif. A police sharpshooter kills Huberty.

Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman opened fire from the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin, killing 16 people and wounding 31.

Oct. 16, 1991: A deadly shooting rampage took place in Killeen, Texas, as George Hennard opened fire at a Luby's Cafeteria, killing 23 people before taking his own life. 20 others were wounded in the attack.

April 20, 1999: Students Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, opened fire at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., killing 12 classmates and a teacher and wounding 26 others before killing themselves in the school's library.

March 10, 2009: Michael McLendon, 28, killed 10 people – including his mother, four other relatives, and the wife and child of a local sheriff's deputy – across two rural Alabama counties. He then killed himself.

The freedom to kill, maim, commit wanton acts of violence, and to be anti-social (as well as pathological) without having your actions reflect on your own racial group, is one of the ultimate, if not in fact most potent, examples of White Privilege in post civil rights era America. Instead of a national conversation where we reflect on what has gone wrong with young white men in our society--a group which apparently possesses a high propensity for committing acts of mass violence--James Holmes will be framed as an outlier.

That is a mighty comfort to have--all of one's deficiencies are ignored as those of an individual; all of one's abilities and gifts are taken as positive attributes and credits to one's race.

As comedian Louis CK has joked, it sure as hell is good to be white and male in America! If given a choice to re-up every year, who the hell wouldn't sign up to be white again?

In America, folks often ask, "what the hell is wrong with black people?" In the aftermath of the Colorado Movie Massacre, Columbine, and many other incidents, we need to ask, "what the hell is wrong with young white men?

Sadly, that question will not be asked on a national stage. White privilege is blinding. In the case of James Holmes, it also mutes a much needed national conversation about the ties between (white) masculinity and violence.

In the aftermath of this tragic event the public is going to be immersed in a national conservation about the relationship between popular culture and violence (as opposed to a necessary (re)evaluation of our country's gun laws). Alternatively, the media and our political elites could engage in a frank discussion about how America is a violent society and what this tells us about our culture, history, and relationships to one another.

Or if they were truly brave and responsible, our leaders could point out an obvious fact: in violent societies where there is ready access to firearms (and apparently military grade tear gas and incendiary devices) there will be moments when mentally unhinged people kill lots of people. We choose to either accept that bargain--and its moments where the banality of evil makes itself apparent and clear--or to reject it and subsequently to modify our laws and social compact.

Rock and Roll leads to teen promiscuity! Jazz makes the children of the respectable classes act badly! Heavy metal is Satanic and tempts our teens to commit suicide! Hip hop encourages youth violence! Elvis Presley's shaking and gyrating hips must not be shown on TV lest young women faint in orgasmic hysterics! Superman is dangerous because kids watch him on TV and are made to think that they too can jump off of roofs and fly!

As the media tries to make sense of the Colorado shooting, we will likely hear echoes of "the ten cent plague" once again.

The twenty-four hour news cycle demands that every angle of a "breaking news event" is explored and exaggerated--regardless of how specious and weak the resulting narrative and "analysis" actually is.

For example, geek and nerd culture was/is taking over the world. Now, it will be subject to scrutiny by folks who will want to draw tenuous connections between a comic book, and an act of wanton violence committed by an unhinged lone wolf. It comes full circle: with the geek renaissance comes inevitable scrutiny and blowback.

Was Holmes a deranged nerd and typecast loner? Do comic books and their movie adaptations encourage violence? Did the Batman comic books inspire Holmes murder spree? Are there other ticking time bombs like him, waiting to go off at any moment when given the right cue by popular culture? What can we do to protect ourselves from these madmen in waiting?

Comic books and graphic novels are firmly planted in the American zeitgeist ("the spirit of the age" as it is more commonly referred to). America is a society that is sick with violence. The talking heads and professional bloviators will carelessly draw connections between those two facts.

As we watch the spectacle unfold, we can never forget that moral panics have never been about the pursuit of truth, or real, actual threats, to society. Rather, they are grand stages upon which deeper cultural and social anxieties are played out. The Colorado shooting is a canvas upon which our country's political, social, generational, and economic anxieties will be projected upon.

Ultimately,the media's coverage of this tragic happening will have little to do with the substance of The Dark Knight Rises specifically, or popular culture, more generally.

I am off to see The Dark Knight Rises. What examples of the moral panic meme have you seen in the coverage so far? How many misunderstandings of Batman, comic books, and the relationship between popular culture and violence have you witnessed so far as this story develops? Will this tragic event keep your from seeing The Dark Knight Rises?

Thursday, July 19, 2012

I was lucky enough to interview India Wadsworth, one of the actresses in Nolan's new film. She plays the role of "the Warlord's daughter." Could she be related to Talia Al Ghul? We shall have to wait a few hours and see.

As I promised, we are going to be doing more of these types of features here on WARN in the future. India was kind enough to answer a range of questions about her role in Batman, the politics of racial identity, and her background as an anthropology student at the London School of Economics.

****

1. How did you end up in the Dark Knight Rises? Life is a funny and random thing; fate is a trickster. Please tell us your story?

I auditioned in London a while ago now, and luckily got a call a few days later with an offer for a mystery role! 2. When you were a child, did you ever imagine that you would be famous? Oftentimes celebrities are interviewed and they have a story where their success sounds like fate and destiny. This was something they always wanted, dreamed about, worked hard at, and it happened. Is this true for you?

Hmm I'm not sure I would say I'm famous. It's not something I ever "dreamed" of. When I was a child I dreamed of the boy next door and rainbows!!

My passion and moto was always to work hard to be successful in whatever I ended up doing. So if success means fame, then thats great, and we should enjoy the ride!

3. Nolan is a master storyteller. One of the reasons why Chris is so beloved is that because he creates a totally believable world in his stories. His Batman is absolutely real and believable--there is no "camp" or "pretend" in the the movie. How have you prepared for your role in Dark Knight Rises? What back story did you create for your character? Without giving too much away about your role, how does she fit into this universe?

Preparing for a mystery role is a challenge, but so exciting. I'd like to think that being in the present moment is as real as you can get, and acting in Nolan's universe has to be genuine and authentic in order for his master story to be so incredible!

4. You studied anthropology at the LSE, please show off a bit if you would. Are we a product of nature or nurture? Do you subscribe to socio-biology? Who is your favorite anthropologist? Who is your least favorite? If you had to tell someone to watch a film or documentary that captures the essence of anthropology what would it be?

Haha! not sure if I can show off anymore, LSE seems like a while ago now!

Life in a Day is definitely one the most important films over the last few years. And from an anthropological perspective is show us who we are right now as a human race.

Nature vs nurture is a fascinating debate that if you get me started I won't stop. So maybe I'll send you one of my essays!

My good Polish friend Branislaw Malinowski kept me inspired during my course, Maison Malinowski was a little coffee shop in Covent Garden which was my escape from the insanity of the LSE library!

I wouldnt say I had a least favourite anthropologist but attempting to understand the theoretical study of Marx always gave me a headache!!

Darwinian anthropology and evolutionary theory always intrigued me so I guess i would subscribe to socio-biology.

5. A related question. Race is a social fiction, a myth, a construction, yet it is real. As has undoubtedly happened given your mixed racial background--there is only one race as you know, the human race, but language is binding in these matters, so alas--what do you do when folks ask, "what are you?" How do you answer? Is there any difference in how these questions are asked (and your answer) in the United States, the U.K., or Europe more generally?

I'm not sure I have ever been asked "what are you?". I'm a human!!

But when I'm asked where i'm from, I'm always say British, no matter where I am in the world. I'm proud of being British and I am also proud of having a mixed ancestry. Have you seen Thandie Newton onTED.com. I love her speech, I think she sums up race and genetic difference really well, that race has no basis in biological or scientific fact.

6. Here at We Are Respectable Negroes we spend a good amount of time talking about being "ghetto nerds." This is our way of thinking about popular culture, race, sci-fi, fantasy, comics, and all those other genres where people of color are often treated as being peripheral. You and I both know that folks like us have always been central to these worlds, and have been deeply invested in them as fans, creators, actors, actresses, artists, and the like. Any advice for young women of color who share these interests and want to develop them professionally?

“My wife and I don’t have any children… I love my children even though they aren’t born yet, and I am sorry that they buried their child. I can’t imagine what it must feel like, and I pray for them daily.”

Zimmerman is possessed of a type of self-righteous narcissism and faux-empathy for those people whose lives he has ruined. In keeping with his belief that he was a tool of prophetic vengeance, Zimmerman also suggested that it was "god's plan" that he killed Trayvon Martin.

I do not know who is worse: Is Zimmerman the true villain here, a killer, perhaps mentally unbalanced and a child molester, with a cop fetish priapism who played Dirty Harry because he couldn't let one of "the blacks" get away again?

Or are those Right-wing reactionary conservatives like Sean Hannity who worship, coddle, and protect Zimmerman doing so because they wish that they were him, a trigger man, one who got to engage in the most dangerous game, hunting down and killing an innocent person of color for sport?

The role of George Zimmerman as an idol, victim, and martyr for the Right is both absurd and freakish.

Unfortunately, for many people who live in a society where political ideology and racial attitudes form a type of Gordian knot, they see justice for Trayvon Martin through a lens which views all people of color, and young blacks in particular, as perpetual suspects whose lives, citizenship, and safety are contingent and not absolute.

Criminality is a precondition of our existence for folks like George Zimmerman and his allies. This is especially true when black folks are confronted by White authority...and those who are overly identified with it.

In all, Zimmerman is likely surprised that he was arrested for the murder of Trayvon Martin. He intimately understands that black life is cheap in America. As such, what is the fuss over shooting dead a black teenager in the street? Zimmerman still does not have an answer to that question. Likewise, his supporters also do not have an answer to that question either.

This is the source of their love for Zimmerman, and sincere rage at his arrest and prosecution. If anything, the murder of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman should have just been a minor inconvenience for all involved--except of course the victim, his family, and community. He is just a black anyway, so what's the big deal? They die everyday in America and no one cares either way.

Consequently, how dare anyone suggest that legal and personal accountability should interfere with George Zimmerman's fantasy play and rent-a-cop, amusement park, joyride of death.

Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane. The villain in The Dark Knight Rises is named Bane, B-a-n-e. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran and around which there's now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time. The release date's been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental that the name of the really vicious fire breathing four eyed whatever it is villain in this movie is named Bane?

So, anyway, this evil villain in the new Batman movie is named Bane. And there's now a discussion out there as to whether or not this is purposeful and whether or not it will influence voters. It's gonna have a lot of people. This movie, the audience is gonna be huge. A lot of people are gonna see the movie, and it's a lot of brain-dead people, entertainment, the pop culture crowd, and they're gonna hear Bane in the movie and they're gonna associate Bain.

The thought is that when they start paying attention to the campaign later in the year, and Obama and the Democrats keep talking about Bain, Romney and Bain, that these people will think back to the Batman movie, "Oh, yeah, I know who that is." (laughing) There are some people who think it'll work. Others think you're really underestimating the American people to think that will work.

The countdown to The Dark Knight Rises continues. I have a fun interview with someone who was in the film that I will post tomorrow. For now, here is where we stand.

[But we are all postmoderns here, so who the hell cares what a writer has to say about his own character!]

Not to be left out of The Dark Knight Rises fever, Rush Limbaugh issued his obligatory mouth-vomiting about the liberal Hollywood elite's conspiracy against Mitt Romney. Apparently, the tentacles of this plot run so deep as to have involved the creation of a time machine (or retroactive manipulation of Charles Dixon several decades ago) so that the Bane character could be named as such in order to subconsciously link Mitt Romney's robber baron Bain Capital firm with the iconic villain in the year 2012.

I don't pity Rush Limbaugh. He has too much money and power for me to extend such empathy. Nevertheless, I do not envy him his daily task. Each weekday, Limbaugh and his fellow Right-wing shock jocks have to find something to become outraged about, some new plot to discover, and some new hate to cultivate for their audience. Right-wing talk radio is political meth for its users. Limbaugh and the other Right-wing hate machine bloviators broke the number one rule of the drug game: they got high on their own supply. It is making them crazy...all the way to the bank.

As a ghetto nerd comic book fan, I just want to see Bane break the Bat's back. I also want to see if this means that Christian Bale is sidelined for the remained of the film and audiences are introduced to Nightwing aka Dick Grayson for the climactic battle with Bane and his minions.

For those of you planning to see the movie, what plot points are "must haves?"

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

It was a bunch of people who invented the assembly line to make them efficiently and quickly. Government had nothing to do with it! The second point about this is, you know what this really is? This is a bunch of people that don't count.

This is a bunch of people with miserable, meaningless lives who are lying to themselves; trying to tell themselves that they matter. So you had Mr. Big Factory Owner who is Mr. Big Business Guy and Mr. Wealthy in their view.

"Well, he didn't do it on his own! He couldn'ta done it without all of us. We built the roads and we built the regulations. We built the stoplights, and we built the trains!" Yeah? Well, if you did all that, how come you're sitting there with nothing? If you made it all happen, how come you've got nothing? "Well, the rich business guy stole it from me! We're the ones that actually made it all happen."

This is such a crock.

This is a bunch of meaningless people (who know that their lives don't account for anything) trying to matter, and coming up with this ridiculous philosophy that says, "Successful people have not done it on their own. Successful people only exist because of the nameless, faceless, real, true hard workers." You know, before Marx there was no such thing as class-driven economics. If that guy had been aborted, we'd have a whole different world today.

--Rush Limbaugh, July 16, 2012 show

Language is violence. Language can incite physical violence and murder. Language can inflict pyschic violence as well. Language can also be used to demean whole groups of people such that their citizenship is called into question as their human value is marginalized.

Of course, we have seen this dynamic at work in genocides around the world. We also saw this same mobilization of language in order to legitimate America's policy of "Manifest Destiny," enslavement of blacks, exploitation of other people of color (both domestically and internationally) in the service of empire, and abuse of the working classes and the poor.

In an earlier post on the sociopathy of Mitt Romney and the Ayn Randian logic of the Tea Party GOP, I alluded to how I never would have imagined that I would live in an era where eliminationist rhetoric has become so apologetically central in our political discourse. It is now common place for Conservatives to talk about "surplus" human beings, and the poor and working classes (and in some cases the middle class), as "parasites."

[Random observation, I thought conservatives were all for States' Rights? Riddle me that one...]

Language does political work. It helps to create a type of common sense which naturalizes certain policies. Language shapes public opinion by introducing ideas and concepts which citizens internalize and respond to. Public opinion is a barometer of the public mood; political elites (which includes the media) have a great deal of power over how it is shaped. The manipulation of language through the repetition of certain concepts is integral to all of these dynamics, as it establishes a narrative frame which shapes the nation's political agenda.

The Right's eliminationist language is being used by its agents towards an end goal. It is not floating out there in the social ether, harmless, neutral, and benign. Branding people as cockroaches, non-productive, parasites, who should in turn submit to the "job creators," has been extensively refined, workshopped, and focused grouped. It is not a coincidence that more and more of this rhetoric is being offered up by the Right as the 2012 Presidential campaign moves forward.

It is a given that the Right wants to eviscerate the social safety net and radically alter the social compact between citizens and their government. However, they can accomplish this goal without using the language of genocide. Why then has the Right and its pundit classes made such a choice?

These questions are a serious matter.

I am going to start a running feature where I list all of the instances of eliminationist and genocidal language used by the Republican Party and its operatives going forward. I am afraid of what we will discover, but I am compelled nonetheless.

Moreover, there is a power to metrics here, of presenting a running count with examples and context for these eliminationist appeals. The patterns will tell us a great deal about the themes Right-wing opinion leaders are using to shape their public's mood. When this language starts to bear fruit either in a shifting in public attitudes, or violence (which the hate talkers will deny they have any connection to), we will have a document that points out how this all came to fruition.

As you come across Right-wing eliminationist hate speech by Tea Party GOP candidates, officials, and their media elites, please send me an email so I can keep our list up to date.

I am in a pop culture mood this week given that the finale in Nolan's Batman Trilogy is coming out Friday. I am swollen and heavy, prepared for an epic geekgasm come Thursday at midnight!

I am a member of the hip hop generation. I remember walking down Michigan Avenue one evening and a brother about my age was hustling his CDs to passersby. He asked me if I loved hip hop. I replied that I still love hip hop, but hip hop doesn't love me anymore.

This does not mean that hip hop has not given me so very much. She has bestowed many opportunities upon me. But, I worry that we have failed her, and by implication the younger heads simply do not know any better because those of us with wisdom have not passed it down...and they, like young folks of every generation, are especially resistant hearing from us "old" heads.

Of course, we age out of youth culture. Such is life. But, and I have said this many times in classrooms, workshops, and at conferences, hip hop--commercial hip hop in particular--is in crisis because 1) we have grown ass men in their 30s and 40s making music for people with the intellectual capacity of 12 year olds; and 2) that mediocrity and low hanging fruit have become the norm and standard for greatness in the craft.

For folks who grew up in an era when excellence in flow and lyricism actually mattered in how the public appraised and judged an MC's ability, to hear the assorted Two Chainz, Gucci Mane, Waka Flocka nonsense that has become the norm for commercial hip hop is truly depressing.

For folks of my generation, we could never imagine or dream that any of us could be as good as Rakim, B.I.G., Pac, KRS-ONE, Redman, or Big L. Even more frightening and shocking is that you heard all of those titans on commercial radio.

Now the heroes are far closer to the public; the music is more democratized. Perhaps it is a personal quirk, but I do not want to be able to stare eye to eye with my gods and idols as equals. It would appear that many do not share this guiding principle as they wallow in the mud of nasty, uncritical populism. As such, this explains a great deal about the state of American political and social life, a moment when mediocrity has been elevated to greatness.

My only interventions would be that Raekwon and Ghostface are obvious omissions bordering on the criminal. Where is AZ? Ludacris is a beast. Why is he so low? How did Lauryn Hill, who is a glorified RnB singer, even make the list? What about Phife Dog? I do like their ranking of Pac. He had a great deal of heart, and was a great MC, but not the greatest of all time as many would want to anoint him.

And this may be sacrilege to some, but 50 Cent should be much higher, as he is the synthesis and refinement of a model for the prototypical commercial MC which was offered up many years ago. And frankly, there is no way that Bun B, Fabolous, or Queen Latifah are "more lyrical" MCs than 50 Cent.

Monday, July 16, 2012

I am
going to let you in on a big secret. Mitt Romney is white. In certain political
circles we are not allowed to talk about such an obvious thing. Conservatives
and the Right-wing media also tend to get upset when the American people talk
about the fact that Mitt Romney is a white man. Apparently, to do so is to commit
an act of “reverse racism”—and we all know that in the Age of Obama there is no
greater sin.

I have
a second secret that may surprise you as well: I do not care one bit if Mitt
Romney is a white man.

Why?
Because his racial background means little in the context of the many
challenges facing America
in the time of the Great Recession. However, this does not mean that Mitt
Romney’s particular type of whiteness is unimportant to either his political
worldview or his chances of becoming the next President of the United States.

Race
still matters despite the “colorblind” rhetoric of the post-civil rights era:
it impacts life chances, job opportunities, health care, income, and wealth.
Race is also a type of common sense that helps orient people in relation to the
world around them. Here, racial identity, while not as fixed as it once was
because the color line has evolved over time, influences the neighborhoods in which
we live, who we marry and socialize with, our country’s politics, and the types
of privileges (unearned or not) that individuals enjoy in this country.

Mitt
Romney’s identity as a rich, white, heterosexual man is integral to his
political brand. It also explains much of his appeal for conservative voters.
This is especially crucial given that since the 1960s, the GOP has effectively
become a de facto white political party.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

That set of facts alone made the “free stuff” speech shockingly offensive. But the problem isn’t just that Romney’s wrong, and a hypocrite, and cynically furthering dangerous and irresponsible stereotypes in order to advance some harebrained electoral ploy involving white conservative voters. What makes it gross is the way he did it.

Romney can’t even be mean with any honesty. Even when he’s pandering to viciousness, ignorance and racism, it comes across like a scaly calculation. A guy who feels like he has to take a dump on the N.A.A.C.P. in Houston in order to connect with frustrated white yahoos everywhere else is a guy who has absolutely no social instincts at all...

Most presidents have something under the hood – wit, warmth, approachability, something...

But Romney doesn’t buzz with anything. His vision of humanity is just a million tons of meat floating around in a sea of base calculations. He’s like a teenager who stays up all night thinking of a way to impress the prom queen, and what he comes up with is kicking a kid in a wheelchair. Instincts like those are probably what made him a great leveraged buyout specialist, but in a public figure? Man, is he a disaster. It’s really incredible theater, watching the Republicans talk themselves into this guy.

Matt Taibbi's observations about Mitt Romney's NAACP speech (and its aftermath) are spot on. As I suggested here, Romney's insincere ploy at bridge-building with African Americans was really an effort to put them "back in their place" by signaling to the GOP base that as President he would not encourage our "parasitic" and "welfare queen" like behavior. This is ugly race baiting of the first order; it is also masterful political strategy.

This is a bold claim; but given Mitt Romney's behavior, it demands more than a flippant dismissal.

When the public thinks of sociopaths they envision a psychotic killer or mass murder. These are outliers who are more caricatures/ideal typical cases than the rule.

Frighteningly, sociopaths are apparently quite common in American society where they constitute at least 4 percent of the population. They are characterized by a lack of empathy, an inability to form deep and meaningful interpersonal relationships, coldness, and flat affect. In total, the sociopath is marked by a lack of conscience.

They can feign and perform emotional reactions like an actor or actress following a script. However, they do not feel emotions in the same way as "normal" people. In certain professions and trades an amount of sociopathic behavior can actually be an advantage--the world of business, the highest levels of government, and elite military units for example. Robber baron gangster capitalists such as Mitt Romney would certainly find a lack of (or even inhibited) conscience a great aid towards their success.

Ultimately, sociopaths view human beings as chess pieces to be moved and manipulated towards their own personal ends. Here, the following observation as offered in The Sociopath Next Door is both provocative and insightful:

About one in twenty-five individuals are sociopathic, meaning, essentially, that they do not have a conscience. It is not that this group fails to grasp the difference between good and bad; it is that the distinction fails to limit their behavior. The intellectual difference between right and wrong does not bring on the emotional sirens and flashing blue lights, or the fear of God, that it does for the rest of us.

Without the slightest blip of guilt or remorse, one in twenty-five people can do anything at all...We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense

Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving of ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking when we make a choice we view as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish...Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless military snipers.

Friday, July 13, 2012

I get forwarded videos from sources on both the Left and the Right. I typically do not post them. I am especially loyal to this policy in regards to the white supremacist materials which I am informed about.
Given some of the fun we are having here with the variousblack activistshot sweaty menin an informal think tankaka basement "Anon" trolls who are fixated on a "Jewish conspiracy" to destroy black America, this newest video from David Duke is quite timely.

Help me understand the following if you would.
A certain strain of black activist type is obsessed with Jews and believes that they are actively conspiring to hold back and derail the Black Freedom Struggle. Likewise, white nationalists suggest that the Jews are actually manipulating blacks, and have done so historically from Emancipation, and on through to the post Civil Rights era, in order to hold down white Americans.

These theories comprise one of the most fascinating paradoxes in racially chauvinistic political thought. Are there shared origins here that can trace their wellsprings back to centuries-old garden variety anti-Semitism? Or has there been a cross-fertilization of anti-Semitic thought that crosses the color line and just ends up with different mechanisms and consequences for the global Jewish conspiracy in the 21st century?

There is the potential for comedy gold here as our various "Anons" end up arguing with whatever white nationalist types who may find their way to this discussion thread about Trayvon Martin and the "Jewish Media."

I always tell folks the truth; I don't pull any punches. Is that to my advantage or disadvantage? We shall see.

I just got back from an early screening of the new film The Obama Effect that is premiering across the country during these next few weeks. Here is my review. Consider yourself warned.

****

The Obama Effect
is a well intentioned, but tonally confused and challenged movie that follows
the political awakening of an African-American insurance agent named John
Thomas, portrayed by the always
reliable Charles Dutton, during the 2008 Presidential election.

Despite its many
flaws in tempo and tone, The Obama Effect is a healthy and much desired
departure from the black buffoonery and new age race minstrelsy foolishness
offered up by Tyler Perry and others of his ilk.

The Obama Effect
also features a great group of reliable black and Latino “B” actors who deliver
solid performances. Unfortunately, just like Dutton, they are unable to
transcend a poorly written script.

The Obama
Effect’s plot is simple in its premise, but becomes increasingly confused and
overwrought as the movie continues through to its conclusion. Charles Dutton’s
character is an everyman who is forced to face his mortality after suffering a
near fatal heart attack while arguing about politics at a hot dog stand with
his friends…and yes, this scene does in fact occur in the movie.

As he recovers,
John Thomas realizes that supporting then candidate Barack Obama’s run for the
White House is a personal, almost religious, calling. Thomas subsequently
dedicates himself to Obama’s campaign—even quitting his job to do so—and the
plot finds its momentum going forward from this odd and bizarre choice.

Along the way,
we encounter a range of characters such as Thomas’ loyal wife played by Vanessa
Colloway, his Latino neighbors, an ex-con trying to stay on the right path, and
their respective children and love interests. Kat Williams’ character Martin
Luther Kennedy steals the show as a black Republican who is a hybrid of the
foolish showmanship of 2012 Tea Party GOP candidate Herman Cain and the much
maligned black conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

However, The
Obama Effect meanders from a film about politics, to one about family
relationships, to a sports drama about corruption in boxing, a public service
announcement about the dangers of heart disease and obesity in the black
community, a meditation on the “browning ofAmerica,” a reflection on felony disenfranchisement laws, and an exploration of the political and social tensions between blacks and Latinos.

If the producers
and writers of The Obama Effect had decided to do a narrow drama focused on the
relationship between Dutton’s and Williams’ characters they would have been much
better served. Alternatively, if The Obama Effect decided to be a straight
political comedy such as Idiocracy (or even a dark comedy such as Wag the Dog),
the final product would have been much improved.

The central
problem with The Obama Effect lies in its genre label as a “dramatic comedy.”
This is a signal to a basic problem that the film’s creators cannot overcome.

While all of the
performances are sincere—especially Dutton’s—the film is not sure about what it
wants to be. The audience seemed confused as well, where they laughed at
inappropriate times and seemed confused about the general direction of the
film. Hybrid descriptions of a film’s intent like “dramatic comedy” are usually
signs that its creators were not able to reconcile the project’s tone and
direction. The Obama Effect would seem to validate this wisdom, as it tried to
be all things to all viewers and left most unsatisfied.

For example, in
one of the most odd and bizarre plot devices in the film, Dutton’s character
speaks to a spectral, ghost-like vision of Barack Obama who offers him wisdom
and guidance akin to a Twilight Zone or Outer Limits TV show episode. John
Thomas is either crazy, deranged, impassioned, or just off of his
anti-psychotic meds—the film offers little clarification in this regard. The
film’s narrative is also awkward here: are we to laugh at Dutton’s obvious
mental health issues and bizarre fetish for Barack Obama? Or are we to be
inspired by his dedication to a political cause that he truly believes in? Is
Dutton a Democratic and liberal version of the tragic black conservative
character Uncle Ruckus in the Boondocks cartoon, a man who obsesses about
Ronald Reagan and has ghostly visions of his idol? Should we embrace Dutton’s
character or pity him?

I am a resident
of Hyde Park inChicago. I live down the street from the
President. I voted for Barack Obama in the last election and will do so again
(not because of a sense of racial group affinity, but rather because I find
Mitt Romney and the Tea Party GOP’s policies a hellish alternative that I
cannot in good conscience support).

I have also
spoken to Barack Obama when he was a senator (and local celebrity) on more than
one occasion—he is cool people. I cried when he was elected because I thought
that given this country’s history that a black American like me could never
become President of theUnited States.
The power of that moment is hard to communicate across lines of race—trust me
it was real, sincere, and deeply felt. As such, it was fascinating to see The
Obama Effect inChicagowith
a predominantly African-American audience.

The movie has an
unintended impact and meaning. While The Obama Effect focuses on “hope and
change,” and the excitement of that singularly important political and history
changing moment, I left the film feeling sad and depressed. The dreams we
impose on a candidate rarely survive the difficulties of practical
governance—Obama’s tenure is proof of that fact.

Thus I must ask
the following question. After watching the film, will Obama’s supporters be
left feeling buoyed for what could have been and that which has not yet transpired?
Or will they be upset and disgusted?

After seeing The
Obama Effect I am concerned that his detractors will have further evidence of
“group think,” and silly stereotypes about “Obamabots” and “Obamazombies”
(voters who supported the President without thinking because they were caught up in the thrill
of the moment) as ammunition to attack the country’s first President who
happens to be black.

Of course this
is not fair, and is an incomplete analysis of how voters come to decide if they
should support a given presidential candidate. Nevertheless, it is a failing of
The Obama Effect that the film could have an impact which is precisely the
opposite as intended by its creators. This is the central problem with The
Obama Effect: after watching the movie viewers are potentially left feeling
less supportive of the President than before they entered the theater.

There is no way
that such a sentiment can be considered a success given the plot and tone of
the movie.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Even before Mitt Romney delivered his speech before the NAACP National Convention on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that his primary motive was to convince large numbers of black voters to turn against President Obama. After the speech, many pundits concluded that Romney actually wanted to get booed, and he even admitted in an interview that he "expected" to get a negative response. By the end of the day, things took a nastier turn when Romney told supporters that if those in the NAACP audience like "free stuff," they should vote for Obama, prompting some to accuse him of race baiting.

Mitt Romney is turning iron into gold here. Disdain and hostility for black people (and other people of color) is the glue that holds together contemporary conservatism in America. The boos of the NAACP in response to Mitt Romney's stated promise to work against the policy priorities of that organization are points scored in the eyes of the white Right.

Rush Limbaugh said Mitt Romney’s speech Wednesday to the NAACP fell flat because it was “over these people’s heads” and that the group booed the Republican candidate, who “sounded like Snow White with testicles,” simply because he’s white.

Limbaugh, who regularly refers to the NAACP as the “NAALCP” — the extra L is for “liberal” — claimed that President Barack Obama insulted the group by sending Vice President Joe Biden instead.

“He’s confident they’ll boo Romney, simply because Romney’s white,” Limbaugh said. “He’s confident of that. But he knows that he’s gonna have hell to pay in private meetings with these people. He’s not gonna get anywhere near it. So what an insult. Here’s Obama sending Biden, not going himself.”

Limbaugh portrayed the crowd at the NAACP’s annual convention in Houston as ignorant of what was good for them and susceptible to pandering from Obama and other Democratic politicians.

“This group wants to hear about tax increases and bigger government to take care of people,” he said, according to a transcript. “They don’t want to hear about self-reliance, they don’t want to hear about free enterprise. Free enterprise means you’ve gotta do it yourself. Free enterprise means it’s up to you. Free enterprise means you’re on your own. This group doesn’t want to hear that. I don’t think Romney got a single vote in here today.”

I will give Mitt Romney extra points for showing up before such a hard audience. Given how Romney was booed, and the unpopularity of his policies, such a speech before the NAACP took some tenacity (others would call it hubris) and strength of conviction.

However, politics is ultimately about winning friends, giving interest groups something they want in order to support you, and securing the votes of a given public: Mitt Romney fell flat in all these regards before the NAACP on Wednesday.

Consider the following. What politician, who is serious about winning over a constituency, spends time in front of one of their most important organizations, and then proceeds to tell them, to their faces, about his support for policies which would hurt them and/or are counter to their interests?

Black folks support President Obama's health care reforms. Black folks disproportionately work for federal and state governments--and are thus put out of their jobs and on the street by Romney and the Republican Party's assault on the public sector and unions. Black folks, as a group of Americans disproportionately represented among the working and lower middle classes, would see their taxes go up under Romney's proposed tax initiatives.

Yet, in a major speech before the NAACP, Mitt Romney says he will work against all of those stated interests and priorities. Riddle you that one.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The Canadian arm of the aircraft engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney closed a six-year U.S. government probe last week by admitting that it helped China produce its first modern attack helicopter, a serious violation of U.S. export laws that drew a multimillion dollar fine.

At the same time it was helping China, the company was separately earning huge fees from contracts with the Pentagon, including some in which it was building weapons meant to ensure that America can maintain decisive military superiority over China's rising military might.

The Chinese helicopter that benefited from Pratt's engines and related computer software, now in production, comes outfitted with 30 mm cannons, anti-tank guided missiles, air-to-air missiles and unguided rockets. "This case is a clear example of how the illegal export of sensitive technology reduces the advantages our military currently possesses," Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton said in a statement released on June 28.

The events are once again raising questions about the circumstances under which major defense contractors might be barred from government work. Independent watchdogs have long complained that few such firms have been barred or suspended, even for egregious lawbreaking, such as supplying armaments or related equipment to a hypothetical adversary.

Nothing in the settlement agreement, in which Pratt & Whitney and two related companies, United Technologies and Hamilton Sundstrand agreed to pay a total of $75 million for multiple violations of export rules, directly threatens Pratt's existing or future government contracting.

When Hamilton finally discovered the military use of its software in Feb. 2004, it shut down its production in less than a week. Pratt, still holding out hope for the large civilian helicopter contract, picked up where Hamilton Sundstrand left off and exported its own versions of the software to China through June 2005.

Prosecutors, in a court filing, said the company turned a "blind eye" to any doubts because it was hungry to earn up to $2 billion from the civilian program. Canadian authorities, after being told about the parallel Z10C helicopter, approved the export of 10 engines.

Pratt & Whitney's Canadian subsidiary next asked its sister subsidiary Hamilton Sundstrand -- headquartered in the United States -- to write the software needed to control the engines, without saying that the purpose was to equip a military helicopter. From January 2002 to October 2003, Hamilton Sundstrand exported 12 versions of the software to Pratt & Whitney, which sent six of those on to China for use in the development model of the Z10 helicopter, according to the settlement agreement.

United Technologies made a limited disclosure about its involvement to the State Department in 2006, after an institutional investor said it was researching the company's role in helping China's military and threatened to disinvest. The company has now admitted that disclosure -- which claimed the company believed at the outset there were dual civilian and military helicopter programs -- was inaccurate.

In the end, Pratt got little more for its troubles than a federal probe. In early 2006, China's Aviation Industry Corporation told Pratt & Whitney the supposedly parallel civilian helicopter development would be scrapped. Instead, China said it would instead build a much larger civilian helicopter, too large for the engines built by Pratt & Whitney.

According to the Justice Department's statement announcing the settlement, the first batches of the Z10 attack helicopter were delivered to the People's Liberation Army of China in 2009 and 2010.

China is a (rising) superpower. It is not at all outside of the realm of reason or possibility that the United States and her allies will be in a conflict with China in the near future. Yet, an American company sells them the software and technology necessary, in violation of the law, to make their war machine more effective at killing American soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines.

There will be few if any consequences for this act of treason. The issue is too technical for the public to latch onto as presently framed; political elites live in a revolving door universe where they move seamlessly from the public to the private sector; and the military-industrial complex has so much money and influence over American life that few folks have the moral fortitude or personal integrity to speak up against it.

Apparently, such trading of technology and secrets between "rival" nations by their corporate actors in order to profit maximize is not at all new or novel.

For example, I am finally finishing up Adam Hochschild's World War One social history To End All Wars. There he details a similar story of corporate self-interest working contrary to the public good.

Until reading To End All Wars, I did not know that during World War One German and British companies traded weapons and material with each other while the citizens of those respective countries were simultaneously killing each another by the millions.

The corporation is a sociopathic entity. Consequently, if the corporation was a person it would likely be a serial killer. It has been decades since what was good for General Electric was good for Main Street. Ironically, many Americans--especially conservatives where such a belief is held with religious zeal--take this sentiment to still be true.

If the modern corporation is indeed sociopathic, would it not follow that its CEO's and managers are similarly inclined? Why does this not automatically disqualify a candidate like Mitt Romney as a potential protector of the general welfare and steward of our national prosperity?

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

I occasionally bemoan how the Internet has taken the mystery out of geek and nerd culture. Like others, I too am worried about how social media and the democratization of information has encouraged a dysfunctional public discourse. Anyone can claim expertise with little vetting; opinion based news is now dominant; emotions and feelings are privileged as a type of evidence in lieu of empirical rigor and critical thinking.

However, there are times when the Internet and the digital revolution can aid learning as opposed to stifle it. This great panel discussion about the legacy of Malcolm X is one such example. In the near past, it would have taken months or years for a video or transcript of an event such as this one to circulate. Now, the public has ready access to these types of conversations. This is a net gain.

The featured panelists at the Legacy of Malcolm X conference held in February 2012 are a wonderful mix of thinkers. Paul Gilroy is a noted and highly accomplished philosopher who is best known for his foundational work The Black Atlantic. Tariq Ramadan is a scholar of Islamic Studies, a philosopher, and is frequently called upon to comment on the relationship between religion, secular ethics and law, and the future of a more cosmopolitan Islam. Zead Ramadan is Chairman of the Board for the Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Center, and was a family friend of the late Malcolm X.

Heroes are (almost by definition) myths. Some members of the public hold on to these fictions in order to find strength and inspiration. Others find these fictions troublesome and thus take great pleasure in disabusing people of silly thoughts and childish dreams.

As we have discussed here on a number of occasions, I like my heroes a bit rough around the edges. For me, the details of a person's shortcomings, complexities, and quirks makes them more accessible, and an object of more admiration as opposed to less. Martin Luther King Jr. may have been a womanizer and in many ways a hypocrite (and even a plagiarist). Muhammad Ali was a cruel trickster and provocateur who manipulated the country's ugly racial politics to his own ends.

Moreover, despite how Brother Malcolm is lionized, he was not a perfect thinker, and much of the political ideology he channeled was not a good fit for confronting the practical political realities (and constraints) of Jim and Jane Crow America.

Their accomplishments are made no less great because of these facts.

Paul Gilroy's intervention about black masculinity and how we, black men in particular, invest ourselves in Brother Malcolm is one of the high points of this panel. But as we approach the 2012 Presidential Election, Gilroy's plain spoken realpolitik observations about Barack Obama as a man whose race is secondary to the institutional constraints placed upon him merits (re)emphasis. As he suggests, we can be a society where race is meaningless, but where racism and white supremacy are still a changing same which governs much of American political and social life.

For all of the talk in 2008 about post racial America, and the promise of a President who happened to be black, many in the public forgot that whoever is elected to the country's highest office is a cog in a bigger machine. To believe that you could have radical transformational change through institutional politics was a chimera and a joke. The system is designed to be sedentary, slow, and constrained by inertia. As such, the Age of Obama vs. the Age of Malcolm is a false comparison. The latter was a figure who worked outside of the system (and in fact created little actionable political change); the former is a product of a multicultural, elite class which is deeply invested in maintaining the status quo of the American as a passive consumer-citizen in a market democracy, and of protecting America as an empire.

Many first time, as well as young voters, did not understand this basic fact of American political life. Now, they are disenchanted and less likely to support Obama in the 2012 election. He is not a radical. He is not a "black" president. Obama is quite simply the President of the United States, and a figure who is part of a system which is beholden to certain interests above and beyond all others.

How do we reenergize these disaffected voters? Can we work with their newly gained political maturity in the interest of the Common Good in order to mobilize them against the plutocrats and the Ayn Rand Tea Party GOP? Or are they just disgusted and are going to sit this election out, thus letting Romney, the far worse of the alternatives, into the White House come November?

Tips and Support Are Always Welcome

Who is Chauncey DeVega?

I have been a guest on the BBC, National Public Radio, Ring of Fire Radio, Ed Schultz, Sirius XM's Make it Plain, Joshua Holland's Alternet Radio Hour, the Thom Hartmann radio show, the Burt Cohen show, and Our Common Ground.

I have also been interviewed on the RT Network and Free Speech TV.

I am a contributing writer for Salon and Alternet.

My writing has also been featured by Newsweek, The New York Daily News, The Huffington Post, and the Daily Kos.

My work has also been referenced by MSNBC, the Associated Press, Chicago Sun-Times, The Washington Spectator, Media Matters, The Gothamist, Fader, XOJane, The National Memo, The Root, Detroit Free Press, San Diego Free Press, the Global Post, as well as online magazines and publications such as The Atlantic, Slate, The Week, The New Republic, Buzzfeed, Counterpunch, Truth-Out, Pacific Standard, Common Dreams, The Daily Beast, The Washington Times, The Nation, RogerEbert.com, Ebony, and The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Fox News, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Juan Williams, Herman Cain, Alex Jones, World Net Daily, Twitchy, the Free Republic, the National Review, NewsBusters, the Media Research Council, Project 21, and Weasel Zippers have made it known that they do not like me very much.